You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Has nothing to do with their free agency history and everything to do with them being a winning organization that knows what it's doing, and isn't signing players for the sake of making headline news

Like they knew what they were doing with all those other signings? It doesn't make any sense to give them the benefit of the doubt. The Patriots have a history of making poor FA moves that fit this type of mold, and I have no reason to believe this will be any different, nor should anyone else.

I disagree with describing those as "poor moves" - I would say a poor FA move is overpaying, or rewarding 1 year of production or something like that. Galloway was roster fodder, Chad was cheap, Albert was cheap - it's low risk high reward situations. At the end of the day, its on the players to play well - the role of the GM is simply to minimize damage to the organisation in the event the player doesn't work out.

Signing Haynesworth to 100m contract? Poor decision.
Signing him to a small, cuttable deal? Worth the risk, if he tries.

Agreed 150%._________________
7DnBrnc53-"Brady is the perfect QB for Belichick: Someone who isn't very talented, but is a good leader and can play well in the structure of his offense."

The only thing I want to see out of this is Bredy getting sick of answering more questions about Tebow and maybee snaping on the media. ... but that probably wont happen.... but I can dream._________________

In an age where sporting stories are milked well past their expiration date and we have to sit through 24 hour coverage from multiple sports networks....

The fascination with this man makes zero sense to me. No hate but his appeal is lost on me.

The off-the-field stuff + Charisma + Comebacks + Arguably the greatest college football player of all time.

Maybe if you were born in (or started watching college football only in) the past two decades.

The "greatest college football player ever" would have been relegated to the bench and goal-line glorified RB detail by Chris Leak and then had to have the offensive scheme adapted to fit him.

I don't think Tebow even qualifies for Top 5 greatest college football players even if you limit it just to offensive players (if you throw in defensive players he doesn't even remotely qualify for Top 10).

Chris Leak was a pretty good college QB in his senior tear while Tebow was a true freshman. Hardly relegated to the bench. Additionally, if anything Meyer's offense was adapted to fit Leak, a more traditional drop back guy than Tebow, who fit the Meyer spread offense very well. This post kind of blows up in your face if you're questioning others' knowledge of CFB, which is a shame because I think you're consistently one of the better posters here.

Has nothing to do with their free agency history and everything to do with them being a winning organization that knows what it's doing, and isn't signing players for the sake of making headline news

Like they knew what they were doing with all those other signings? It doesn't make any sense to give them the benefit of the doubt. The Patriots have a history of making poor FA moves that fit this type of mold, and I have no reason to believe this will be any different, nor should anyone else.

I disagree with describing those as "poor moves" - I would say a poor FA move is overpaying, or rewarding 1 year of production or something like that. Galloway was roster fodder, Chad was cheap, Albert was cheap - it's low risk high reward situations. At the end of the day, its on the players to play well - the role of the GM is simply to minimize damage to the organisation in the event the player doesn't work out.

Signing Haynesworth to 100m contract? Poor decision.
Signing him to a small, cuttable deal? Worth the risk, if he tries.

Would you rather I rephrase it to say "that don't work out"? It's the same thing. More often than not, these type of moves don't work out for the Patriots. Whether they spent a lot of money on them or not means little to the point. The Patriots haven't been successful with this type of move, so they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. It should be viewed exactly as it is, not just accepted as "the Patriots know what they're doing."_________________
Live like you're down 3-1

Has nothing to do with their free agency history and everything to do with them being a winning organization that knows what it's doing, and isn't signing players for the sake of making headline news

Like they knew what they were doing with all those other signings? It doesn't make any sense to give them the benefit of the doubt. The Patriots have a history of making poor FA moves that fit this type of mold, and I have no reason to believe this will be any different, nor should anyone else.

I disagree with describing those as "poor moves" - I would say a poor FA move is overpaying, or rewarding 1 year of production or something like that. Galloway was roster fodder, Chad was cheap, Albert was cheap - it's low risk high reward situations. At the end of the day, its on the players to play well - the role of the GM is simply to minimize damage to the organisation in the event the player doesn't work out.

Signing Haynesworth to 100m contract? Poor decision.
Signing him to a small, cuttable deal? Worth the risk, if he tries.

Would you rather I rephrase it to say "that don't work out"? It's the same thing. More often than not, these type of moves don't work out for the Patriots. Whether they spent a lot of money on them or not means little to the point. The Patriots haven't been successful with this type of move, so they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. It should be viewed exactly as it is, not just accepted as "the Patriots know what they're doing."

That Moss guy worked out pretty well. Talib worked out well enough to be re-signed. Corey Dillon worked out pretty well. Granted those were trades (so were OchoCinco and Haynesworth). Alfonzo Dennard (a 7th round draft pick who was low risk/high reward with character issues) looks like a good pick.

The Patriots have routinely found good players on the scrapheap. Yeah, some of the higher profile guys haven't worked out but do you really expect them all to? If they have a 1 out of 4 success rate, they're doing quite well.

To be honest, it is exactly "the Patriots know what they're doing" because they know what they expect from the player and unlike many (not all) other teams, they cut bait with a player as soon as they become too much trouble relative to their performance. They don't keep guys who don't fit their program, even if it is a high profile player, early draft pick or at a position of need.

That Moss guy worked out pretty well. Talib worked out well enough to be re-signed. Corey Dillon worked out pretty well. Granted those were trades (so were OchoCinco and Haynesworth). Alfonzo Dennard (a 7th round draft pick who was low risk/high reward with character issues) looks like a good pick.

The Patriots have routinely found good players on the scrapheap. Yeah, some of the higher profile guys haven't worked out but do you really expect them all to? If they have a 1 out of 4 success rate, they're doing quite well.

They haven't routinely found guys. Given the total number of signings and trades for these type of players, I'd hope they can get some to work out. They still don't get the benefit of the doubt that this will work, when even as you note, the majority don't work out. It's a low risk signing based on the contract. That's the only thing that plays a factor in whether the signing is good or not. The fact that it's the Patriots doesn't make it a better signing.

Quote:

To be honest, it is exactly "the Patriots know what they're doing" because they know what they expect from the player and unlike many (not all) other teams, they cut bait with a player as soon as they become too much trouble relative to their performance. They don't keep guys who don't fit their program, even if it is a high profile player, early draft pick or at a position of need.

So we should trust it's not a failed signing because the team makes a lot of failed signings and moves on quickly once they realize it?_________________
Live like you're down 3-1

That Moss guy worked out pretty well. Talib worked out well enough to be re-signed. Corey Dillon worked out pretty well. Granted those were trades (so were OchoCinco and Haynesworth). Alfonzo Dennard (a 7th round draft pick who was low risk/high reward with character issues) looks like a good pick.

The Patriots have routinely found good players on the scrapheap. Yeah, some of the higher profile guys haven't worked out but do you really expect them all to? If they have a 1 out of 4 success rate, they're doing quite well.

They haven't routinely found guys. Given the total number of signings and trades for these type of players, I'd hope they can get some to work out. They still don't get the benefit of the doubt that this will work, when even as you note, the majority don't work out. It's a low risk signing based on the contract. That's the only thing that plays a factor in whether the signing is good or not. The fact that it's the Patriots doesn't make it a better signing.

Quote:

To be honest, it is exactly "the Patriots know what they're doing" because they know what they expect from the player and unlike many (not all) other teams, they cut bait with a player as soon as they become too much trouble relative to their performance. They don't keep guys who don't fit their program, even if it is a high profile player, early draft pick or at a position of need.

So we should trust it's not a failed signing because the team makes a lot of failed signings and moves on quickly once they realize it?

All teams sign more mediocre/poor/disappointing players than stars. That's just true. The Patriots generally get more value out of players they sign than other teams - which has lead to media/fans spotlighting their failures, partly because sustained success breeds a bit of bitterness.

It's a hallmark of how well the organisation is run that when people want talk up these failed signing its "Hey remember when they traded that fifth round pick for that WR who only caught 25 passes, made the superbowl anyway and cut him the next off season?" and not massive draft reaches or huge unearned contracts.

But the flaw in this argument is actually more basic than that - because I haven't seen/heard anyone saying Tebow will be a good/great player simply because he signed with the Patriots.

People have said McDaniels might get out if him because he's a better OC than Sporano - this is probably true. That Brady is a great technician and might be able to help Tebows mechanics - true. That he might be able to produce better if he plays because the Pats have a better offensive personel - also true.

People have said the Patriots handle the media better and won't this get out of hand like the Jets did - this is definitely true. And that Tebow himself might have a positive effect on many players on the Pats who played with him in college.

So it IS a good signing - it puts a cheap but physically talented player in the best possible position he could be in order to progress and grow as an individual athlete and help the team win - whilst having absolutely minuscule chances of hurting the organisation financially or in terms of team morale._________________Adopt-a-Pat2014 - Rob Gronkowski TE: Rec: 82 Yds: 1124 TD: 12
2015 - Rob Ninkovich DE: Tkl: 52 Sck: 6.5 FF: 1 FR: 1 INT: 0 PD: 7
2016 - Julian Edelman WR: Rec: 98 Yds: 1106 TD: 3

I don't think Tebow is worth an NFL active roster spot. If anyone is going to get value out of him though it will be Belichek. They risk nothing by bringing him in. He could not even make the team & they lose relatively nothing.

In an age where sporting stories are milked well past their expiration date and we have to sit through 24 hour coverage from multiple sports networks....

The fascination with this man makes zero sense to me. No hate but his appeal is lost on me.

The off-the-field stuff + Charisma + Comebacks + Arguably the greatest college football player of all time.

Maybe if you were born in (or started watching college football only in) the past two decades.

The "greatest college football player ever" would have been relegated to the bench and goal-line glorified RB detail by Chris Leak and then had to have the offensive scheme adapted to fit him.

I don't think Tebow even qualifies for Top 5 greatest college football players even if you limit it just to offensive players (if you throw in defensive players he doesn't even remotely qualify for Top 10).

In what way was Meyer's offense adapted for Tebow-- that's just an ignorant statement.

Again, history existed prior to Tim Tebow at Florida. Go back and have a look-see at Meyer's offensive scheme when he was coaching at Utah with Alex Smith as his QB or even, though to a lesser extent, at Bowling Green when Josh Harris was his QB. There are similar elements to those schemes and the one run with Tebow under center, but there are also distinct differences - most notably less of an emphasis on the current incarnation of the designed read-option (they used motion in the backfield similar to a more traditional double- or triple-option), and the version of the spread put more emphasis on short-passing akin to the Walsh WCO... in part because Smith and Harris (and Leak) had superior short-range accuracy and quicker delivery than Tebow did/does.

The ignorant statement (or at the very least extremely shortsighted one) is calling Tim Tebow the greatest college football player in history.

And look what he runs now at OSU- the current Buckeye's QB passes less than Tebow-- it appears likely that Meyer adjusted his offense to include more QB runs and less passing as he became a more conservative coach and the level of competition he faced stepped up.